Pros and Cons to a written Constitution

[CatholicSage]

I've recently thought a bit about the differing constitutional styles of America and Britain, and I have to say that I've been leaning more towards the British view than I would have thought. Of course, having a single written constitution has the benefits of relative simplicity and clear statements of governmental and legal functions, but I don't think that anyone back in 1789 realized how annoying some people and groups can be because of stupid interpretations and loopholes in this Constitution.

Think about it: if our Constitution were based on tradition and the simple status quo with a couple of documents thrown in, the ACLU would have little to corrupt, there wouldn't be such a fuss about religion in school, and there would be no quibbling about the precise role of the federal government.

On the other hand, basing the Constitution on the status quo could have made injustices in society last longer, namely slavery and then segregation. What do all you political historical types think about this, this wonderful first (hopefully!) post in the political history forum?

[TheOneAndOnly]

On the other hand, basing the Constitution on the status quo could have made injustices in society last longer, namely slavery and then segregation.

What makes you say that? Britain outlawed slavery in the Empire years before America. And we didn't fight a Civil War over it.

[CatholicSage]

It outlawed the slave trade, which seems quite a bit easier. What I mean is that a constitution based on the status quo would make it difficult to uproot established social institutions, even those that are morally wrong.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

What makes you say that? Britain outlawed slavery in the Empire years before America. And we didn't fight a Civil War over it.

Slavery wasn't that important to Britain's economy. They had a good pool of relatively cheap free labor to work in its factories. And its not like they turned away cheap US cotton that was slave-raised.

It was with the US constitution that the notion of a written constitution was developed. Before that, constitution was understand as the nature of checks and balances within the gov't. I.e., the mix of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy(or more accurately plutocracy) that existed.

dlw

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I mean is that a constitution based on the status quo would make it difficult to uproot established social institutions, even those that are morally wrong.
Thank goodness. I completely agree. Abortion would be legal and accepted based on this sort of Constitution. (See Roe v Wade which is below) :smile:
3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 -- was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.

Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. 23 But the later and predominant view, following the great common-law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman "quick with child" is "a great misprision, and no murder." 24 Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), "modern law" took a less severe view. 25 A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime. 26 This is of some importance because while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum, that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under their received common law, 27 others followed Coke in stating that abortion of a quick fetus was a "misprision," a term they translated to mean "misdemeanor." 28 That their reliance on Coke on this aspect of the law was uncritical and, apparently in all the reported cases, dictum (due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for post-quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus.

[Soundsurfr]

Think about it: if our Constitution were based on tradition and the simple status quo with a couple of documents thrown in, the ACLU would have little to corrupt, there wouldn't be such a fuss about religion in school, and there would be no quibbling about the precise role of the federal government.
Sounds like a nightmare to me. :eek:

[One Bad Pig]

I've recently thought a bit about the differing constitutional styles of America and Britain, and I have to say that I've been leaning more towards the British view than I would have thought. Of course, having a single written constitution has the benefits of relative simplicity and clear statements of governmental and legal functions, but I don't think that anyone back in 1789 realized how annoying some people and groups can be because of stupid interpretations and loopholes in this Constitution.
I just finished reading The Federalist Papers. In No. 85, Alexander Hamilton argues against a Bill of Rights in general (and freedom of the press in specific); he considered the Constitution itself to be a Bill of Rights.

Think about it: if our Constitution were based on tradition and the simple status quo with a couple of documents thrown in, the ACLU would have little to corrupt, there wouldn't be such a fuss about religion in school, and there would be no quibbling about the precise role of the federal government.
The federal government has quite overstepped its bounds, IMO. The Constitution spells out what the federal government has authority over, and leaves everything else to the states.

This is what the Constitution says about religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The whole fuss about religion in school comes from the idea of "separation of church and state" that Thomas Jefferson wrote about in a personal letter written while he was president.

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is what the Constitution says about religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The whole fuss about religion in school comes from the idea of "separation of church and state" that Thomas Jefferson wrote about in a personal letter written while he was president.Really? Well who used that letter? Why was it so important? The whole fuss with schools comes from a letter by Jefferson? Well seeing that the letter by Jefferson written to a Danbury group that was cited by the US Supreme Court case, Reynolds v United States (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html), in 1878 I'd have to say there is room for disagreement with your stance.

What exactly do you disagree with in Reynolds v United States? You for bigomy?

[One Bad Pig]

Really? Well who used that letter? Why was it so important? The whole fuss with schools comes from a letter by Jefferson? Well seeing that the letter by Jefferson written to a Danbury group that was cited by the US Supreme Court case, Reynolds v United States (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html), in 1878 I'd have to say there is room for disagreement with your stance.

What exactly do you disagree with in Reynolds v United States? You for bigomy?
I am not for bigamy, but I disagree with the court's referencing that letter. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to break laws, which is what that case determined. What has that to do with "separation of church and state"?
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, which is what that letter implies. The purpose of [that phrase of] the First amendment was to prevent the government from legislating that one religion was the only allowed religion, and that no religion could be outlawed. This case defined that to mean that only religious beliefs could not be outlawed; religious acts (such as bigamy or child sacrifece) could, however, be legislated against.

[Socrates]

I've recently thought a bit about the differing constitutional styles of America and Britain, and I have to say that I've been leaning more towards the British view than I would have thought.
Good for you. British Common Law, based on the Bible, emphasizes responsibilities, as well as complete freedom within those limits. But the American system is based on "rights" instead of responsibilities. That's why there are shocking cases where a girl was raped in the street and no-one helped, or someone drowning because no-one helped.

But decide that something is a "right", then it's a small step to force others to satisfy this "right". It's no accident that bills of rights have always escalated litigation.

Of course, having a single written constitution has the benefits of relative simplicity and clear statements of governmental and legal functions, but I don't think that anyone back in 1789 realized how annoying some people and groups can be because of stupid interpretations and loopholes in this Constitution.
Most of the problems are due to corrupt liberal activist judges advancing the fiction that the constitution means what they like, instead of what the originals writers meant.

Think about it: if our Constitution were based on tradition and the simple status quo with a couple of documents thrown in, the ACLU would have little to corrupt, there wouldn't be such a fuss about religion in school, and there would be no quibbling about the precise role of the federal government.
And there would be no fuss about appointing justices, because regardless of personal views, they could be trusted to apply the law not make law. See Scalia: Judicial Hearings Too Partisan (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=555337#post555337).

[Socrates]

What makes you say that? Britain outlawed slavery in the Empire years before America. And we didn't fight a Civil War over it.
Exactly!! Britain was truly the "land of the free" while the USA still had slave states. And what's more, Britain used the might of its navy to "impose its morality" of anti-slavery on others!!

[CatholicSage]

And how do you respond to Jimmy's point about abortion in common law, Soc?

[Bob Jenkins]

And how do you respond to Jimmy's point about abortion in common law, Soc?

I suspect that a discussion of abortion will lead the thread astray. However. indulge me in answering the question.

I am also not sure that the dates track well, but common law seems to parallel the changing view of the church regarding abortion beggining in the 5th century till the Catholic Church, in 1869, eliminated the distinction of the fetus concerning "quickening".

Abortion:
Ancient Christian Beliefs (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)

[Alden]

Really? Well who used that letter? Why was it so important? The whole fuss with schools comes from a letter by Jefferson? Well seeing that the letter by Jefferson written to a Danbury group that was cited by the US Supreme Court case, Reynolds v United States (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html), in 1878 I'd have to say there is room for disagreement with your stance.

What exactly do you disagree with in Reynolds v United States? You for bigomy?

It would seem that One Bad Pig is speaking from more of a strict constructionist standpoint. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, the establishment clause is. I like the intent of the establishment clause. I don't think that state-endorsed churches are a good thing. I agree with the founders' desire to prevent the practice from continuing. However, I don't think that they would have intended for the political climate to become such that there are lawsuits to remove publicly displayed manger scenes. The separation nonsense has gone too far.

Recently, there was a cross removed from public land in my area. It had been put there sixty years ago (when the land was totally undeveloped) by a man who was grieving the loss of his son at sea. It was a memorial. It was not the government saying, bow down and worship Jesus according to the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc.

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how do you respond to Jimmy's point about abortion in common law, Soc?Funny how cowardly the pompous ... and short Socrates can become when he has no ammo. He just runs and runs.

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would seem that One Bad Pig is speaking from more of a strict constructionist standpoint.Well, I just thought it appropriate to point out where the origin of the Jefferson cite was. I know One Bad Pig didn't know. Nor did the vast majority on here who wants church in everything.

Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, the establishment clause is.
Separation is inherent from Jefferson's own words. In the same breath, there was to be no interference of the private establishment of church, of which there has been none! Churches aren't even taxed. People are crying fowl, but these multi-billion dollar industries are getting a great deal in the US.

However, I don't think that they would have intended for the political climate to become such that there are lawsuits to remove publicly displayed manger scenes. The separation nonsense has gone too far.I think it is a waste off time and money and resources to be fighting to remove manger scenes or even worse, pagan symbols of religion such as a christmas tree. Such things are representative of the people and their religion. Such are rooted way way back in history and have been celebrated for a long time. Its tradition, no one should be denying that.

However, in the same breath, you've got people trying to sneak religion into schools, using their 5 year old children with religious messages on candy canes, trying to get out the religion message. So the way I see it, both sides are messing up. You want christmas in a christian dominated school? Then you can't have children evangalizing in there as well. You can't have it all. You want religion, fine with me, but there is a median that the Right doesn't want to acknowledge. Tolerance works both ways. Right now, they are working against each other. It'd be nice if both sides could call a truce and work at bridging this rather childish gap that has formed.

[Bob Jenkins]

Funny how cowardly the pompous ... and short Socrates can become when he has no ammo. He just runs and runs.

Socrates likes the hit and run He has an open invitation to "debate" the Constitution in the Tennis Court but while hiding from that despicably picks at other posts.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Socrates likes the hit and run He has an open invitation to "debate" the Constitution in the Tennis Court but while hiding from that despicably picks at other posts.Well maybe we are both wrong. I mean you are just starved for attention here and I'm the liar who claims that the bible says black people are inferior and that I wanted trillion of Americans to die in Iraq. :ahem:

[Bob Jenkins]

Well maybe we are both wrong. I mean you are just starved for attention here and I'm the liar who claims that the bible says black people are inferior and that I wanted trillion of Americans to die in Iraq. :ahem:

It seems we each have a "cross" to bear

[One Bad Pig]

Well, I just thought it appropriate to point out where the origin of the Jefferson cite was. I know One Bad Pig didn't know.
I knew about the letter, but not that it was used in the Supreme Court case you cited. Thanks for pointing that out.

Note, also, that Thomas Jefferson was not a part of the Constitutional Convention.

[Alden]

However, in the same breath, you've got people trying to sneak religion into schools, using their 5 year old children with religious messages on candy canes, trying to get out the religion message....Tolerance works both ways.

Interesting. The implication here is that these people are working as "counter-agents" or subversives trying to "sneak religion into schools" as you so charming put it. A further implication is that their faith could not possibly be genuine. This in itself is quite an intolerant thing to say.

[Bob Jenkins]

Interesting. The implication here is that these people are working as "counter-agents" or subversives trying to "sneak religion into schools" as you so charming put it. A further implication is that their faith could not possibly be genuine. This in itself is quite an intolerant thing to say.

I wouldn't say "counter-agents" - subversive is closer if not "right-on". My recollection is that, in the case of the candy, it was in direct oposition to the law, up held many times, that was told to the parents.

Maybe the faith of the parents impelled the civil disobedience, not necessarily criminal, but definetly a violation of established law.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting. The implication here is that these people are working as "counter-agents" or subversives trying to "sneak religion into schools" as you so charming put it.Huh?
A further implication is that their faith could not possibly be genuine.How in the world did you get from what I said to that?
This in itself is quite an intolerant thing to say.It would be, but that's not even close to what I said.

What I stated is that there is a median that both sides need to meet. Eliminating christmas from public schools is outright foolishness, in my opinion. However, so is using a child who isn't really conscious of "their" religion to evagelize.

The federal government needs to have a list showing what is and isn't appropriate, such as christimas stuff. Then the schools should all abide by it. However, that is where it ends. A school celebrating christmas is not promoting christianity.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe the faith of the parents impelled the civil disobedience, not necessarily criminal, but definetly a violation of established law.Its really only civil disobedience when you actually do it yourself, not use your child as a tool.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I knew about the letter, but not that it was used in the Supreme Court case you cited. Thanks for pointing that out.I think it is ultimately crucial to note when that letter was cited. You have alot of people claiming Judges with Agendas are making this stuff up. However, when you note that such a case was ruled on in 1878, this really takes ammo out of the Evil Liberal Judges conspiracy theory.

[One Bad Pig]

I think it is ultimately crucial to note when that letter was cited. You have alot of people claiming Judges with Agendas are making this stuff up. However, when you note that such a case was ruled on in 1878, this really takes ammo out of the Evil Liberal Judges conspiracy theory.
:noid: How? It's not the first SC case I've disagreed with in one way or the other. A result I approve of doesn't excuse poor methodology. The SC has made some poor decisions in the past; it's never been called on it, though.

[Jimmy Higgins]

:noid: How? It's not the first SC case I've disagreed with in one way or the other. A result I approve of doesn't excuse poor methodology. The SC has made some poor decisions in the past; it's never been called on it, though.Oh, so you are for bigomy then?

[CatholicSage]

A school celebrating christmas is not promoting christianity.

Merry Winter Solstice!! :eh:

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. A school celebrating Christmas is celebrating a Christian holiday and therefore Christianity.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Merry Winter Solstice!! :eh:

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. A school celebrating Christmas is celebrating a Christian holiday and therefore Christianity.I'm sorry, but maybe I forgot when the transition occurred. Since when does Christmas have anything to do with Christianity? It certainly isn't all the capitalistic shopping, or all the alcohol consumption, or the higher suicide rate, or the pagan christmas caroles.

[Alden]

A further implication is that their faith could not possibly be genuine.

Huh?
How in the world did you get from what I said to that?


This:

However, so is using a child who isn't really conscious of "their" religion to evagelize.


...is how got to that. Never mind the fact that the bible makes remarks about "having faith like a child" and all that, Jimmy says that a child cannot be conscious of their religion. I guess that settles it!


The federal government needs to have a list showing what is and isn't appropriate, such as christimas stuff. Then the schools should all abide by it. However, that is where it ends. A school celebrating christmas is not promoting christianity.

Yeah, 'cause that would work. :ahem:

You know, coming from someone who tends to rail against the current powers that be, this is an interesting proposal.


Since when does Christmas have anything to do with Christianity?

Obviously, you are not a golfer.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

My country of the last 17.5 years, Israel, has no written constitution. I submit the following in the way of background (from our Foreign Ministry website):

Upon attaining independence (1948), Israel passed the Law and Administration Ordinance, stipulating that laws prevailing in the country prior to statehood would remain in force insofar as they did not contradict the principles embodied in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (http://tinyurl.com/2ny7z) or would not conflict with laws to be enacted by the Knesset. Thus the legal system includes remnants of Ottoman law (in force until 1917), British Mandate laws, which incorporate a large body of English common law, elements of Jewish religious law and some aspects of other systems. However, the prevailing characteristic of the legal system is the large corpus of independent statutory and case law which has been evolving since 1948. Following the establishment of the state, the Knesset was empowered to enact a series of basic laws, relating to all aspects of life, which would eventually be brought together to form a constitution. Most chapters have already been passed as Basic Laws outlining the fundamental features of government such as the President, the Knesset, the Government, the Judicature, Israel Defense Forces, the State Comptroller, Freedom of Occupation (dealing with the right to follow the vocation of one's choosing) and Human Dignity and Liberty, which addresses violation of a person's life, body or dignity.

The normative superiority of Basic Laws over ordinary legislation was confirmed in 1995, when the Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review of Knesset legislation violating a Basic Law.

Basic Laws
The Knesset (1958; http://tinyurl.com/2fogq)
State Lands (1960; http://tinyurl.com/36esx)
The President (1964; http://tinyurl.com/ywatb)
The Government (1968/2001; http://tinyurl.com/2v5nk)
The State Economy (1975; http://tinyurl.com/32qg4)
Israel Defense Forces (1976; http://tinyurl.com/33gys)
Jerusalem (1980; http://tinyurl.com/3appk)
The Judiciary (1984; http://tinyurl.com/ytc36)
The State Comptroller (1988; http://tinyurl.com/2avhn)
Human Dignity and Liberty (1992; http://tinyurl.com/3dnzc)
Freedom of Occupation (1992; http://tinyurl.com/3fhoa)

Despite what the foregoing excerpt says, I think that it is highly unlikely that Israel will ever have a written constitution per se and will, instead, make do with our Declaration of Independence and the aforementioned Basic Laws (which, unlike regular legislation, can only be amended by an absolute majority of 61 members of our 120-member Knesset) indefinitely. A written constitution, I think, must reflect a broad, cross-sectoral, societal consensus (it cannot be a means of creating such consensus as some Israelis believe). I don't know about Britain, but Israel has no such consensus and many groups and sectors would see a written constitution as an attempt to foist a particular weltanschauung on them and it would immediately become the focus of sharp opposition. It is convenient for many groups (religious Jews in general & ultraorthodox Jews in particular, Israel's minority communities, etc.) that many issues be left in the ambiguous, flexible state that they're in now rather than be forced into the more rigid, sharply defined framework of a written constitution. What is ambiguous (and amorphous) cannot be objected to so easily and can be more easily ignored; thus, civil tension and conflict (as if Israel doesn't have enough of these already!) can be avoided.

This selection of Israeli laws (all of them with links) http://tinyurl.com/3g8ae may be of interest.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[One Bad Pig]

Oh, so you are for bigomy then?
What part of "A result I approve of doesn't excuse poor methodology." don't you understand?

[CatholicSage]

I'm sorry, but maybe I forgot when the transition occurred. Since when does Christmas have anything to do with Christianity?


Uh...you can't be serious.


It certainly isn't all the capitalistic shopping, or all the alcohol consumption, or the higher suicide rate, or the pagan christmas caroles.

Correct. It's the BIRTH OF CHRIST part that has to do with Christianity. There wouldn't BE a Christmas without Christianity. There would be some general winter festivites around that time, but no Christmas.

[Ben Franklin]

Exactly!! Britain was truly the "land of the free" while the USA still had slave states. And what's more, Britain used the might of its navy to "impose its morality" of anti-slavery on others!!

And it's morality of impressment of American sailors into it's navy...! :lol:

[CatholicSage]

And it's morality of impressment of American sailors into it's navy...! :lol:

Hey! I had the last word! Why did you have to exhume this thing? :bawl:

[Thomas2003]

Well, I just thought it appropriate to point out where the origin of the Jefferson cite was. I know One Bad Pig didn't know. Nor did the vast majority on here who wants church in everything.

I'm very familiar with it and I think the gentlemen that originally posted was on track with his comments.

Jefferson's words were directed to baptists in terms he knew they would understand consistent with Williams teachings. The modern definition of Jeffersons words are not consistent with Jefferson's or baptist's intent - the modern conception is actually a Marxist definition and is found in the constitution for the Old Soviet Union:

"The church shall be separate from the State and the school from the church."

Marxist structure and political meaning is what the Court intended and did establish and has worked out in our social order, we are completely culturally marxist now. To stand against any of the Ten Planks is to be practically considered unAmerican in most people's eyes.

The Founding Fathers generally used the term "independence of Church and Parliament" which is a completely different concept to the modern meaning. The purpose of the First Amendment is the protection of a Free Church in a Free State under God.


Separation is inherent from Jefferson's own words. In the same breath, there was to be no interference of the private establishment of church, of which there has been none! Churches aren't even taxed. People are crying fowl, but these multi-billion dollar industries are getting a great deal in the US.

In the founding era up through to 1954 Churches were non-taxable, which they still are if they wish to maintain that status, just having an economic existence is difficult.

Nevertheless, modern "Churches" are 100% taxable because that is the legal requirement in order to become "tax exempt." Tax exemption and non-assessability are completely different things, tax exemption is like welfare - federal funding of the Church, at least according to the Supreme Court.

American Churches no longer have the legal status of Churches, which is very important - because one has to begin dealing with the concept of baptism, the Lords Supper, tithing &c.

For example, "first fruit" is impossible, you may quickly find yourself ejected from a Church if you demand this ability in any legal sense. Trinitarian baptism is unavailable in most because they organize their businesses consistent with 501 c 3 and relate baptism directly to it.

So, if you insist that you have a Trinitarian baptism ONLY - you may quickly find yourself ejected from a Church. In federally licensed Churches the legal meaning of baptism is very much like licensed marriage - "by the authority of the state I baptise you...." Except marriage terminates at death, no so with baptism. I don't want to go as far donaticism, but I believe there is warrant to question the validity of those baptisms because an oath was taken to the state by the ordained officer, generally. One has to wonder if those pastors still have standing to administer the sacraments, that is a legitimate concern.

The Lord's Supper, well you have to deal with Pauls words in 1 Corintians 10:21 and consider what a syncretic communion (e.g., Christ and Molech) means to your fellowship with Christ in terms of 1 Corinthians 11:27.

These are serious issues and modern Christians don't seem to have a clue, but early Christians willingly laid down their lives in resistance to legal requirement identical to what modern Christians voluntarily line up to do without legal requirement.



I think it is a waste off time and money and resources to be fighting to remove manger scenes or even worse, pagan symbols of religion such as a christmas tree. Such things are representative of the people and their religion. Such are rooted way way back in history and have been celebrated for a long time. Its tradition, no one should be denying that.

Well, they are claiming the state is Sovereign and there is no appeal outside of that.


However, in the same breath, you've got people trying to sneak religion into schools, using their 5 year old children with religious messages on candy canes, trying to get out the religion message. So the way I see it, both sides are messing up. You want christmas in a christian dominated school? Then you can't have children evangalizing in there as well. You can't have it all. You want religion, fine with me, but there is a median that the Right doesn't want to acknowledge. Tolerance works both ways. Right now, they are working against each other. It'd be nice if both sides could call a truce and work at bridging this rather childish gap that has formed.

It isn't a childish gap, it's a hostile intolerance to all things Christian and an unconstitutional assertion of state Sovereignty. Equalitarianism is not the intention of the founders, I think you said you just finished reading the Federalist Papers, I don't remember which one but you'll find Madison's opinion enlightening - they intened the Constitution to protect inequalities.

Christianity was the established religion and a religion must be established and presupposed in any law order, the First Amendment barred Congress from the Divine Right of Kings and establishing a federal Christian denomination. Of course, it does that with immunity today. It protected Christian liberty, Christian law, Christian society and the the freedom of the Christian Church. None of these things exist today.

The doctrine of "independence of Church and State" flows from Christianity and it exists nowhere else in history. All pagan nations in history are always politico-religious institutions and impossible that it be otherwise, as are marxist countries - they just deny they politics are "religious" because they are non-theistic! Modern states may use the words of Christianity but they don't mean the same thing, generally it is inverted and backwards.

Polytheism is the established religion in the United States today and it is in direct violation of the First Amendment among others.

[HRG_new]

Hi all!

My country of the last 17.5 years, Israel, has no written constitution. I submit the following in the way of background (from our Foreign Ministry website):



Despite what the foregoing excerpt says, I think that it is highly unlikely that Israel will ever have a written constitution per se and will, instead, make do with our Declaration of Independence and the aforementioned Basic Laws (which, unlike regular legislation, can only be amended by an absolute majority of 61 members of our 120-member Knesset) indefinitely. A written constitution, I think, must reflect a broad, cross-sectoral, societal consensus (it cannot be a means of creating such consensus as some Israelis believe). I don't know about Britain, but Israel has no such consensus and many groups and sectors would see a written constitution as an attempt to foist a particular weltanschauung on them and it would immediately become the focus of sharp opposition. It is convenient for many groups (religious Jews in general & ultraorthodox Jews in particular, Israel's minority communities, etc.) that many issues be left in the ambiguous, flexible state that they're in now rather than be forced into the more rigid, sharply defined framework of a written constitution. What is ambiguous (and amorphous) cannot be objected to so easily and can be more easily ignored; thus, civil tension and conflict (as if Israel doesn't have enough of these already!) can be avoided.

This selection of Israeli laws (all of them with links) http://tinyurl.com/3g8ae may be of interest.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

IMHO it is irrelevant whether you call something a "constitution" or a "basic law" (as Israel and Germany have done), or whether it is contained in a single document or spread over several ones. Examples for the latter case: again Israel, and Austria.

What's important is its function within a legal order: a written set of norms which is fundamental in the sense that

1. it establishes the basic structures of government;
2. it cannot be amended without specific requirements (supermajorities, popular referendums etc.
3. all "ordinary" laws must be consistent with it.

In this sense, I would say that Israel does have a written constitution.

[Thomas2003]

I think it is ultimately crucial to note when that letter was cited. You have alot of people claiming Judges with Agendas are making this stuff up. However, when you note that such a case was ruled on in 1878, this really takes ammo out of the Evil Liberal Judges conspiracy theory.

Oh no it doesn't and you know it. There is a night and day difference between this decision and it's application of CHRISTIAN LAW against Mormonism and Warren Court Marxism and hostile intolerance to all things Christian.

You left out that the Court went straight back to the statutes of James 1 and His codification of Scripture and Christian law as the foundation of the common law by which Reynolds stood.

Reynolds is a belief-conduct model in Christian law, completely different than the "First through the 14th" illegality foisted on us today. Six times Congress rejected the Blaine Amendment to the 14th to reword it whereby the First Amendment was backwardly applicable.

The modern Supreme Court has been engaged in a sustained and intentional warfare upon the peace and good order of American society for over 75 years. They have, with malice, intend and forethought engaged in high crimes and misdeameanors of Treason and Sedition.